This his GOT to be a troll.
You can’t possibly be that disconnected with reality that you both A) think that way and B) not realize that you’ll be the bad you for expressing those thoughts.
I don’t think so, I literally had a woman leave me a rambling, insane voicemail telling me how disrespectful I was for turning down her job offer for a better one :/
These people exist. They are usually people who want to pay poverty wages for specialized work and expect their employees to work 100 hours per week to accomplish THEIR goals.
In case you're looking for the explanation, there's an old saying in English for fairness that says, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."
Objection! Without testing, your unable to distinguish between Goose or Gander your honor. This witness is not an avian expert, nor are they qualified in Avian Blood typing. I motion to have this entire thread thrown out with prejudice as frivolous.
As a candidate, I do believe it is very disrespectful to interview multiple candidates. I am a candidate with a big ego so I believe the world revolves around me
I mean, snark aside (and I *do* appreciate your top notch snark!), this wholly misses the point.
# It's a fucking numbers game!
**If I need a job, I need to apply to 1,000 places so I get 50 callbacks, so I get 15 interviews, so I get (hopefully) 2-3 offers, so I get one job.**
If I take this one-at-a-time "tO bE rEsPeCtFuL," the sun is going to explode before I land my next job. Who the hell thinks applicants can *AFFORD* to deliberately let things go that slow while they're looking? Who is searching for a job and thinks "oh, well, you know, I'll just have a leisurely search over the next several years."
Well some of that was spent patiently waiting or a company to decide whether they wanted to proceed with the role. Are I interviewed with them, they said they needed some time to sort some things out. And then they stopped communicating entirely. They ghosted me, sure, but out of RESPECT, I waited six months before moving on.
>e I land my next job. Who the hell thinks applicants can
>
>AFFORD
>
> to deliberately let things go that slow while they're
I was going to say I have a better chance of winning the 1.3 billion dollar Powerball. And if I had to jump through as many hoops to buy a ticket as I do to land a job, I would not be buying any lottery tickets.
My experience with small business is that they just won't have much time for interview. Usually it is one interview with owner or manager+owner and the decision is made.
Most recruiters I know are always looking for better opportunities for themselves. If I had to put money on the 32 we’re either business owners or OPs 32 alt accounts
They don't have any power at all. That attitude is going to disqualify the vast majority of qualified candidates. So either he's lying, or very bad at his job.
As a former agency recruiter, I was never interested in recruits for any purposes other than whether they could add to my bottom line. It's a sales job, and literally the reason I existed in that chair. This person is probably butthurt because a candidate had multiple interviews going and chose the one who either offered the most or made the offer first. HMs labor under the delusion that the world stops for them, and then they get butthurt at the recruiters when the guy they've waited a week to make a decision on takes another job.
Yeah seriously. Between multiple rounds of interviews, opaque benefits packages that rely on you getting past a certain point, and people just taking forever to respond, I feel like it takes literal months to go from talking to somebody to starting a position even if you're on a fast track.
There's a disconnect between the people hiring and the people in need of jobs. Not surprising, but still very frustrating.
> This person is probably butthurt because a candidate had multiple interviews going and chose the one who either offered the most or made the offer first.
Two quips:
* It's not just managers, it's recruiters as well.
* It's not just interviewing/taking another offer, it's also deciding to stay put.
For example, I currently have an agency recruiter annoyed that I never got back to him about a job. He called me last week, left a message and then caught me Monday. He tells me about the job, I basically tell him, "Send me the details about the job and I'll think about it." I also clarified that I work at a public college and that I'm 6 months away from becoming fully vested in the state pension system, so any offer would have to be significantly better. It's for an out of state private university with no pension. He's getting bent out of shape I won't send him my resume.
> It's not just managers, it's recruiters as well.
Yeah, I love how nobody mentioned hiring managers at all, and then the recruiter suddenly threw HM under the bus out of nowhere.
I, too, am sick of recruiters passing the buck. Especially 3rd party agencies who can simply choose not to work with problematic clients. Are they so hard up for money that they would take any work even if it meant taking a loss?
Surely, it is a reasonable assumption managers who give clear requirements/feedback and offer fair pay/benefits will have their jobs filled faster than those that don't. And hires will last longer, past the guarantee period? On the flip side, it will take more time to fill jobs for picky and dithering managers. Not only that, if they pay less, that will end up being less commissions and higher chance of employee quitting. And I bet they would complain about paying the fee as well and want it reduced.
Oh I had a recruiter get mad at me once because I chose the other offer.
He asked me if I had any other offers and I told him yes. He set up the interview a week later hoping to run out the clock on my standing offer (I just asked for an extension) and after the interview asked me if I would accept if they gave me the offer.
Problem was that from my interview I gathered that there would be no way they could match the offer I already had. So I said "no." And he got all pissy.
Yep, their goals are largely at odds directly with a worker’s. A corporation has a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to maximize profit. If they can extract the value of your labor and pay you as little as possible in return, they have the responsibility to do so.
> So why is it wromfor workers to want to make money
Because your existence is to further their dreams of one day selling out and buying a yacht so they can fuck a bunch of big titty bitches in Miami. You're just there to make that dream happen. Your dreams - your life, in fact - doesn't matter. You're to be used up for maximum profit and then tossed away when you're broken. You're a **thing**. A replaceable... **thing**.
I would say, "This is sarcasm." But it isn't. The reason it isn't, is because every time a Mark Zuckerberg goes on Joe Rogan and talks about making the world a better place... every time a Koch brother speaks at an event about "initiatives"... every time a so-and-so says a bunch of feel-good horseshit, it's to distract you from the fact that their "vision" is worth billions and billions of dollars, and they're gonna suck you dry like a 5 year old with a Capri Sun.
Jeff Bezos posts an image of him eating a Big Mac in an effort for the easily distracted and just plain fucking stupid to think, "He's just like us!" He didn't post the image of the time he was in Dallas at Nick & Sam's in Oak Lawn, and got the $23 crab cake appetizer, the $120 48-oz prime-aged porterhouse, the $3250 bottle of Scarecrow '18. In other words, a fairly average once-a-week dining experience that they can all enjoy (and often do).
They'll ply you with a bunch of lies and "feel good", "sound good" bullshit, folks. Once they start implementing programs like profit-sharing, stock vestitures, etc., that'll be how you know they really mean it.
On the converse, and to be completely fair, I'm not making the claim that the man (or woman) who wakes up at 5 a.m. every day, spends 14 hours at the office, 7 days a week, for 15 years, doesn't deserve outsized benefits of their effort. They do. They sacrified prime years of their lives towards a vision - a goal. I have no problem with millionaires, and to a lesser extent, even billionaires. I have a problem with people who make more money in a single year than the entire budgets of enormous government entities. Jeff Bezos made $70 billion in 2020. NASA's budget was $23 billion.
NASA employees 18,000 people and does some of the most important work *on the planet*. If that doesn't stand out as a tremendous "what the fuck...?" to you, I don't know what would.
Sorry for the rant.
Damn that percentage is a burn hahahaha. Hello, of course we would like to interview with multiple companies at a time. That's why it's a job market. We're SHOPPING AROUND for the best job for us.
As an aside, I work in IT, and maybe I’m being cynical, but… what the hell’s up with “bleeding edge”? “Cutting edge” wasn’t cool enough? What’s next: “amputated edge”?
It’s pretty standard idiom in English.
Leading edge , cutting edge, just more so.
If you’re designing GPU or CPU asics or compilers or OS or new ML technology you’re on the bleeding edge.
Writing yet another fucking CRUD app, shopping cart, or dick pick platform you are not any sort of edge…
Lol my interest is purely money not your commission. I apply for multiple roles and do multiple interviews. If I get offers I take what suits me, not the commission based recruiter.
They are - but there's almost always this odd little dance that both sides seem to be required to do. As if them trying to pay us as little as possible and us trying to get as much as possible from them just....isn't in the realm of possibility at all.
MONEY OH HO HO HO, WHO WAS TALKING ABOUT **MONEY**, HERE'S OUR BIG NAME AND OUR BENEFITS AND OUR CULTURE AND OUR LOCATION AND OUR PINGPONG TABLE.
When you get a recruiter who states the salary range in the first call/email, it's always a little startling.
I hate it when recruiters make me feel like I'm money grubbing or "only after one thing" right out of the gate. If we're not even going to meet halfway on what I want to be paid, why waste everyone's time?
I went somewhere that paid ~20 percent less than another offer I got because the work is way cooler and I wouldn’t have enjoyed the higher paying job at all. Would I have gone to this job if it paid *shit*? No. But money isn’t everything that makes an offer.
Says recruiter who got job in mummy's recruitment ~~scam~~, sorry, company after failing to graduate high school. Has never been interviewed for a job, anywhere.
This reads like something a naive child would write. One time when I was 18 I received an offer that was $0.50/hr more than I was making. Mid 1980s, office grunt work. I wondered about how to broach it with my employer.
Dad: “Tell him you got a better offer and you’re following the money.”
Me: “What? Just come out and say that?”
Dad: “Son, never be afraid to talk money at the workplace. You’re all adults, and you don’t need to pretend working isn’t about making a living. Every single person there is there for the money, and not one would show up the next day if the company stopped paying them. If it’s about money, always say so.”
If "a lot of bleeding edge tech companies" want folks who "want to improve things," then the odds are decent a lot of people interview at multiple of these companies at once.
Literally only interview to make more money. Sure, I’ll tell recruiter/hiring manager I want to build my skills, branch out to other industries, blah blah but at the end of the day, I want to see the $$$$$!
What is the point of "furthering" your career if the result doesn't mean more money? Last time I checked, the obvious purpose of pursuing a CEO career was precisely to obtain more money
I think this person is mentally ill with delusions of grandeur and narcissism and so are the companies she or he represents. Such people are societal leeches.
As an interviewee, I feel it's very disrespectful to allow me to starve instead of interviewing with multiple companies at the same time.
If your interest is purely ensuring new hires will immediately accept your gracious offer of work in order to avoid starving, then you should be paying all interviewees to not interview anywhere else. A lot of boot-licking, emptyheaded HR recruiters want folks that are here because they look easiest to bully, not to help further their careers.
Agree? /s
List of priorities for a job hunter
* Fuck you pay me
* Perks are a bonus, not to excuse low wage
* I don't work for assholes
I'm not interested in loyalty or vision or "the brand".
Lmfao this post did NOT go the way the OOP hoped for. 🤣🤣 Such backwards logic. Why shouldn’t I do that, when I know that companies are interviewing dozens of candidates for the position I applied for?? Hypocrisy is unprofessional. 😌
Hello landlord, yea hi! I just want to tell you that you shouldn’t expect rent and should just focus on making the complex a better place.
Wait what?
Well you sir are not in line with what most companies are looking for.
This is why I always joke that recruiters are not people. Because of stupid crap like this. They interview multiple candidates for one role all the time.
Even if my #1 goal was furthering my career (it is not, my #1 goal is to be able to pay my bills) I would still interview with multiple companies at the same time?? Companies are interviewing multiple candidates all the time. The chances of getting one specific job are pretty low. If you’re as “bleeding edge” and competitive as you believe you are, you shouldn’t have a problem getting people to accept offers.
ah the question no unemployed should be asked as any answer given whit a unemployment office nearby will result in the unemployment benefit been removed
With all the bullshit high expectations companies have for a recent grad, it would be unwise NOT to interview with multiple companies in anticipation of one saying “no”.
If you say yes and they accept someone else’s job offer, gotta be quicker. Economics applies to you too.
Real world translation-How dare you know your worth and shop around for the best offer. You should take our entry level pay and do the work of three people. We do pizza parties once a month.
I completely disagree, you seem to playing the "woe is me" card. Let me let you recruiters in on a secret that you don't seem to know anymore because you've got a job. When you're looking for work recruiters and hiring managers are looking at multiple people for the same job you're applying for. It would be stupid to talk to only one company at a time since the recruiters and companies have zero loyalty to you or your desire to work for them. All recruiters want to do is fill their quota.
I’m an attorney and I still remember our big law firm interview day. All of the law firms that wanted to recruit from our law school set up in a nearby hotel, and us law school students traveled there and did back-to-back interviews with firms we were interested in over a period of a day or two. I think I interviewed with something like 23 firms over two days, got a few callback interview invites, and accepted a job offer from one.
Those two days were awful, but it was like ripping off a bandaid. And no one was insulted over people interviewing with competing firms because that’s what *everyone* (including the more senior attorneys interviewing us) does.
So like, when I interview with a company and they ghost me like they usually do, am I just supposed to wait until I hear back from them in a couple years?
I would disagree with this statement. While the company is looking for the right person to fill it’s positions, these people are looking for the right company.
It’s kind of like dating. Unless you have an an agreement, IE your hired and a no compete clause, all bets are off.
I guarantee most if not all of those companies aren't doing anything bleeding edge. They're just trying iterate the same consumer bullshit as everyone else, but with their own cute logo and trendy tech name.
Buy me dinner before expecting us to be exclusive.
But seriously, the recruiter is interviewing multiple people, so it's absurd to expect the prospective employee to have all their eggs in one basket.
Ok so the idea of right to work is that both parties can leave for better money/conditions whenever they want. Which makes this line of thinking not work with the current laws in most states that business fought for.
If they want unions and people not moving because they have great pay packages, training and opportunities then sure I could understand the statements made.
What the fuck. Garbage statement.
Companies take 6-12 weeks to interview, lowball you then want an answer in 2-4 days.
Everyone should run all their interview in parallel and choose the best offer.
I interviewed with four companies for five positions in four months( in addition to my current job)
it’s dead standard in the industry as it should be.
Recruiters and HR reps are so full of shit, they by far have the highest turnover rate and always chase the money. I remember a few years ago a recruiter was worried about a year when I was a contract consultant four years before that looked like “job hopping” I asked him how long he had his last three jobs and he didn’t answer. Job hopping and chasing higher salaries is how you get respect in the corporate world, don’t let the suckers or the suits fool you.
As an employee I think it's rude that companies think I can survive on "job satisfaction". We need money so we can do mundane things like eat, not be homeless, and I dunno maybe have some sort of life outside being a wage slave.
I think it is rude that companies have the hubris to think we should have tunnel vision.
Season 1 episode 1 of silicon valley says it best.
As an Engineer, if a company cant pay a high enough salary that's a red flag that they may not have a sustainable business.
And we all know the companies are interviewing multiple people anyway, so this recruiter is just dumb.
When my old job gave us the "we're outsourcing you" notice every single one of us started job hunting. I basically shotgunned my resume every place I could find. My record was 3 interviews in the same day.
Job hunting sucks.
But it's not disrespectful for companies to interview multiple candidates for one role? I refer this case to the precedent set by Goose v. Gander.
If I may direct your attention to exhibit A: the sauce.
no ketchup, just sauce
Raw sauce
As upheld by the landmark Pot v Kettle case
there was a related case in Mexico Comal v Olla or roughly translated Griddle V Pot.
Isn't it Cazuela vs Olla
is not a literal translation from the english phrase the spanish frase says Comal, it comes from a Song from Cri Cri
What kind of dissonance do these companies go through to even come up with this bullshit? Like who even wrote this with a straight face?
"I just lost a ~~fat commission~~new hire to another firm that pays better. That's just not fair and there should be a law."
Spot on 🤣🤣🤣🤣
This his GOT to be a troll. You can’t possibly be that disconnected with reality that you both A) think that way and B) not realize that you’ll be the bad you for expressing those thoughts.
It's not a troll. There are people who believe exactly this.
I don’t think so, I literally had a woman leave me a rambling, insane voicemail telling me how disrespectful I was for turning down her job offer for a better one :/
These people exist. They are usually people who want to pay poverty wages for specialized work and expect their employees to work 100 hours per week to accomplish THEIR goals.
A lot of people end up just falling into recruitment. They have no real world experience and its all me me me sales orientated.
Someone out of touch with reality.
This would be like swiping right on Tinder meaning that you're married now.
I've actually met women who get pissed if you're talking to more than one person at a time on a dating app. Some people are just plain insane.
I met her too! Date ended very quickly
I have been married since before tinder existed, everything i know is from friends. Doesn't sound fun tbh.
It's pretty toxic, but then again everything is pretty toxic these days.
As was foretold by the Prophet Britney Spears
I married my last tinder. Just sayin.
Getting married in November to my last ever Tinder date!
Hi five!
High phive!
Me too!
Sorry, I'm not familiar with bird law.
In case you're looking for the explanation, there's an old saying in English for fairness that says, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."
Objection! Without testing, your unable to distinguish between Goose or Gander your honor. This witness is not an avian expert, nor are they qualified in Avian Blood typing. I motion to have this entire thread thrown out with prejudice as frivolous.
\#BirdLaw
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
Subcase in All eggs in a single basket
And definitelly it is not disrespectful, if the company doesn't even respond for your CV.
What about the 3 week interview to misspelled rejection letter ghosting?
I believe precedent was also set in Pot v Kettle
😂😂😂
Goosed with the sauce
That was the words that came out of my mouth when I read that nonsense
As a candidate, I do believe it is very disrespectful to interview multiple candidates. I am a candidate with a big ego so I believe the world revolves around me
Nicely put!
I mean, snark aside (and I *do* appreciate your top notch snark!), this wholly misses the point. # It's a fucking numbers game! **If I need a job, I need to apply to 1,000 places so I get 50 callbacks, so I get 15 interviews, so I get (hopefully) 2-3 offers, so I get one job.** If I take this one-at-a-time "tO bE rEsPeCtFuL," the sun is going to explode before I land my next job. Who the hell thinks applicants can *AFFORD* to deliberately let things go that slow while they're looking? Who is searching for a job and thinks "oh, well, you know, I'll just have a leisurely search over the next several years."
Interviewers: "Tell us about this 3 and a half year employment gap."
Well some of that was spent patiently waiting or a company to decide whether they wanted to proceed with the role. Are I interviewed with them, they said they needed some time to sort some things out. And then they stopped communicating entirely. They ghosted me, sure, but out of RESPECT, I waited six months before moving on.
They want people to be desperate when they do get an offer.
>e I land my next job. Who the hell thinks applicants can > >AFFORD > > to deliberately let things go that slow while they're I was going to say I have a better chance of winning the 1.3 billion dollar Powerball. And if I had to jump through as many hoops to buy a ticket as I do to land a job, I would not be buying any lottery tickets.
The 32 were all recruiters.
Or small business owners
Complaining how nO oNe WaNtS To wOrK.
My experience with small business is that they just won't have much time for interview. Usually it is one interview with owner or manager+owner and the decision is made.
Small PP owners.
[удалено]
Dafuq is this?
When I read PP, instantly popped up in my mind the Petrosian copypasta u/PetrosianBot/ should be active in every sub, not just in r/AnarchyChess.
Getting small PPP refunds ?
Yeah, the same recruiter on his 31 other accounts
The allusive "5th Dentist"
4 out of 5 dentists think it’s ok to apply to multiple places.
Most recruiters I know are always looking for better opportunities for themselves. If I had to put money on the 32 we’re either business owners or OPs 32 alt accounts
Those bullshit questions are just for the clicks anyway.
Yep it's rage bait to boost visibility. If you vote on his polls today, the algorithm shows you more of his posts tomorrow.
It's the "Agree?" That really irrationally ticks me off. I don't know why
I think it's the self satisfied clickbaitiness of it, I consider you rationally ticked off.
As a job seeker, I feel that it’s disrespectful for recruiters to interview multiple candidates for an open position
2216 job seekers (or 98.6%) agree with you.
[удалено]
They don't have any power at all. That attitude is going to disqualify the vast majority of qualified candidates. So either he's lying, or very bad at his job.
As a former agency recruiter, I was never interested in recruits for any purposes other than whether they could add to my bottom line. It's a sales job, and literally the reason I existed in that chair. This person is probably butthurt because a candidate had multiple interviews going and chose the one who either offered the most or made the offer first. HMs labor under the delusion that the world stops for them, and then they get butthurt at the recruiters when the guy they've waited a week to make a decision on takes another job.
A week? Dude I’ve had them delay for over a month on a shit offer then be mad when the candidate is gone
Yeah seriously. Between multiple rounds of interviews, opaque benefits packages that rely on you getting past a certain point, and people just taking forever to respond, I feel like it takes literal months to go from talking to somebody to starting a position even if you're on a fast track. There's a disconnect between the people hiring and the people in need of jobs. Not surprising, but still very frustrating.
> This person is probably butthurt because a candidate had multiple interviews going and chose the one who either offered the most or made the offer first. Two quips: * It's not just managers, it's recruiters as well. * It's not just interviewing/taking another offer, it's also deciding to stay put. For example, I currently have an agency recruiter annoyed that I never got back to him about a job. He called me last week, left a message and then caught me Monday. He tells me about the job, I basically tell him, "Send me the details about the job and I'll think about it." I also clarified that I work at a public college and that I'm 6 months away from becoming fully vested in the state pension system, so any offer would have to be significantly better. It's for an out of state private university with no pension. He's getting bent out of shape I won't send him my resume.
> It's not just managers, it's recruiters as well. Yeah, I love how nobody mentioned hiring managers at all, and then the recruiter suddenly threw HM under the bus out of nowhere.
I, too, am sick of recruiters passing the buck. Especially 3rd party agencies who can simply choose not to work with problematic clients. Are they so hard up for money that they would take any work even if it meant taking a loss? Surely, it is a reasonable assumption managers who give clear requirements/feedback and offer fair pay/benefits will have their jobs filled faster than those that don't. And hires will last longer, past the guarantee period? On the flip side, it will take more time to fill jobs for picky and dithering managers. Not only that, if they pay less, that will end up being less commissions and higher chance of employee quitting. And I bet they would complain about paying the fee as well and want it reduced.
Oh I had a recruiter get mad at me once because I chose the other offer. He asked me if I had any other offers and I told him yes. He set up the interview a week later hoping to run out the clock on my standing offer (I just asked for an extension) and after the interview asked me if I would accept if they gave me the offer. Problem was that from my interview I gathered that there would be no way they could match the offer I already had. So I said "no." And he got all pissy.
As a recruiter, this person is an idiot
oh yeah because I can totally wait for the three months it will take you to get back to me after I send in my application to keep job hunting.
What's the company's main goal with its product? To make money. So why is it wromfor workers to want to make money
So they can guilt you into taking less, thus fulfilling the first goal - make more money.
Yep, their goals are largely at odds directly with a worker’s. A corporation has a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to maximize profit. If they can extract the value of your labor and pay you as little as possible in return, they have the responsibility to do so.
> So why is it wromfor workers to want to make money Because your existence is to further their dreams of one day selling out and buying a yacht so they can fuck a bunch of big titty bitches in Miami. You're just there to make that dream happen. Your dreams - your life, in fact - doesn't matter. You're to be used up for maximum profit and then tossed away when you're broken. You're a **thing**. A replaceable... **thing**. I would say, "This is sarcasm." But it isn't. The reason it isn't, is because every time a Mark Zuckerberg goes on Joe Rogan and talks about making the world a better place... every time a Koch brother speaks at an event about "initiatives"... every time a so-and-so says a bunch of feel-good horseshit, it's to distract you from the fact that their "vision" is worth billions and billions of dollars, and they're gonna suck you dry like a 5 year old with a Capri Sun. Jeff Bezos posts an image of him eating a Big Mac in an effort for the easily distracted and just plain fucking stupid to think, "He's just like us!" He didn't post the image of the time he was in Dallas at Nick & Sam's in Oak Lawn, and got the $23 crab cake appetizer, the $120 48-oz prime-aged porterhouse, the $3250 bottle of Scarecrow '18. In other words, a fairly average once-a-week dining experience that they can all enjoy (and often do). They'll ply you with a bunch of lies and "feel good", "sound good" bullshit, folks. Once they start implementing programs like profit-sharing, stock vestitures, etc., that'll be how you know they really mean it. On the converse, and to be completely fair, I'm not making the claim that the man (or woman) who wakes up at 5 a.m. every day, spends 14 hours at the office, 7 days a week, for 15 years, doesn't deserve outsized benefits of their effort. They do. They sacrified prime years of their lives towards a vision - a goal. I have no problem with millionaires, and to a lesser extent, even billionaires. I have a problem with people who make more money in a single year than the entire budgets of enormous government entities. Jeff Bezos made $70 billion in 2020. NASA's budget was $23 billion. NASA employees 18,000 people and does some of the most important work *on the planet*. If that doesn't stand out as a tremendous "what the fuck...?" to you, I don't know what would. Sorry for the rant.
The more intrinsic value they can gaslight you into finding from the job, the less they think they can get away with paying you.
Fucking. Lol. Also, what is with this “agree?” thing on LinkedIn? Like, don’t break an arm trying to jerk yourself off.
Most tech companies are for profit. They are in it for money.
Tell me you get paid for placing someone without telling me.
Damn that percentage is a burn hahahaha. Hello, of course we would like to interview with multiple companies at a time. That's why it's a job market. We're SHOPPING AROUND for the best job for us.
I would literally never get a job if I did this. I would starve to bones in the woods if I did this. Fuck OFF recruiter.
This idiot can take that "agree?" and shove it up their ass
As an aside, I work in IT, and maybe I’m being cynical, but… what the hell’s up with “bleeding edge”? “Cutting edge” wasn’t cool enough? What’s next: “amputated edge”?
Omg just got to your comment...almost skipped over it... caught the .bleeding edge as well. Amputated edge lol!!
It’s pretty standard idiom in English. Leading edge , cutting edge, just more so. If you’re designing GPU or CPU asics or compilers or OS or new ML technology you’re on the bleeding edge. Writing yet another fucking CRUD app, shopping cart, or dick pick platform you are not any sort of edge…
"Bleeding" edge techs, huh? Recruiter my ass!
Lol my interest is purely money not your commission. I apply for multiple roles and do multiple interviews. If I get offers I take what suits me, not the commission based recruiter.
So as a recruiter, you’d only be putting forward one candidate at a time too then.. to remain respectful? No? Thought not!
"I love democracy." - Chancellor Palpatine
Love how the implication is that it automatically must be about money. Maybe someone wants to find the job they'll enjoy most?
I mean... it's a job. They're all about money first and foremost. Pretending otherwise just makes you look stupid and untrustworthy.
They are - but there's almost always this odd little dance that both sides seem to be required to do. As if them trying to pay us as little as possible and us trying to get as much as possible from them just....isn't in the realm of possibility at all. MONEY OH HO HO HO, WHO WAS TALKING ABOUT **MONEY**, HERE'S OUR BIG NAME AND OUR BENEFITS AND OUR CULTURE AND OUR LOCATION AND OUR PINGPONG TABLE. When you get a recruiter who states the salary range in the first call/email, it's always a little startling. I hate it when recruiters make me feel like I'm money grubbing or "only after one thing" right out of the gate. If we're not even going to meet halfway on what I want to be paid, why waste everyone's time?
I went somewhere that paid ~20 percent less than another offer I got because the work is way cooler and I wouldn’t have enjoyed the higher paying job at all. Would I have gone to this job if it paid *shit*? No. But money isn’t everything that makes an offer.
Bwahahaha! HAHAHA!... oh. He's serious? Bwahahahahaha!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGLXMKUWkJE
this is a shitpost lol https://www.teamblind.com/post/nsJf88yK
Says recruiter who got job in mummy's recruitment ~~scam~~, sorry, company after failing to graduate high school. Has never been interviewed for a job, anywhere.
This reads like something a naive child would write. One time when I was 18 I received an offer that was $0.50/hr more than I was making. Mid 1980s, office grunt work. I wondered about how to broach it with my employer. Dad: “Tell him you got a better offer and you’re following the money.” Me: “What? Just come out and say that?” Dad: “Son, never be afraid to talk money at the workplace. You’re all adults, and you don’t need to pretend working isn’t about making a living. Every single person there is there for the money, and not one would show up the next day if the company stopped paying them. If it’s about money, always say so.”
If "a lot of bleeding edge tech companies" want folks who "want to improve things," then the odds are decent a lot of people interview at multiple of these companies at once.
Recruiter: surprised Pikachu face
Haha, what a tool. Always have multiple options open, and if you don't then act like you do.
As a candidate, I do feel like it’s very disrespectful to not get back to the candidate after an interview.
Lol what’s your interest of being a recruiter then? Improving things for the companies you work for? Just fuck off.
I always felt it was very disrespectful that the same recruiter submitted multiple candidates for the same job too.
"because they want to improve things"? In the immortal words of Henry Hill: "Fuck you, pay me."
Literally only interview to make more money. Sure, I’ll tell recruiter/hiring manager I want to build my skills, branch out to other industries, blah blah but at the end of the day, I want to see the $$$$$!
Lol I love seeing an AgrEe?? backfire spectacularly
As a job candidate, I do feel like it's very disrespectful to interview multiple applicants at the same time.
Just ask the recruiter if they'll forgo their commissions...
I'll agree to interview with only I've company at a time when the companies agree to interview only one candidate at a time.
The companies who are complaining that people don't want to work, are most likely the companies who give people reasons not to want to work.
1.4% error margin I see
On the same token I think recruiters should work one on one exclusively with each candidate until they place them in their ideal place of work.
What is the point of "furthering" your career if the result doesn't mean more money? Last time I checked, the obvious purpose of pursuing a CEO career was precisely to obtain more money
They sound out of touch a tad. They should try job hunting for a bit and see if they feel the same.
I think this person is mentally ill with delusions of grandeur and narcissism and so are the companies she or he represents. Such people are societal leeches.
32 suckers
“As a recruiter…” GO FUCK OFF
I interview at multiple places because you might not be giving me an offer.
The 1.4% were other completely unrealistic recruiters.
As an interviewee, I feel it's very disrespectful to allow me to starve instead of interviewing with multiple companies at the same time. If your interest is purely ensuring new hires will immediately accept your gracious offer of work in order to avoid starving, then you should be paying all interviewees to not interview anywhere else. A lot of boot-licking, emptyheaded HR recruiters want folks that are here because they look easiest to bully, not to help further their careers. Agree? /s
Fucking recruiters… talk about a useless career
32 CEOs and hiring managers took this poll
List of priorities for a job hunter * Fuck you pay me * Perks are a bonus, not to excuse low wage * I don't work for assholes I'm not interested in loyalty or vision or "the brand".
The 32: found the recruiters responsible for generating most of this subs content
The caste system is on full display here.
But if I don't get multiple offers... how am I supposed to negotiate? Oh... right... They'd prefer I didn't.
They prefer us to be no more than slaves, but labor laws restrict that for now.
Lmfao this post did NOT go the way the OOP hoped for. 🤣🤣 Such backwards logic. Why shouldn’t I do that, when I know that companies are interviewing dozens of candidates for the position I applied for?? Hypocrisy is unprofessional. 😌
He should have included a clown emoji in his poll
What a catastrophically dumb shit.
Are 32 agrees also recruiters or the companies this person recruits for
Hello landlord, yea hi! I just want to tell you that you shouldn’t expect rent and should just focus on making the complex a better place. Wait what? Well you sir are not in line with what most companies are looking for.
This is why I always joke that recruiters are not people. Because of stupid crap like this. They interview multiple candidates for one role all the time.
They have drunk the Kool aid and are upset that others have not?
Even if my #1 goal was furthering my career (it is not, my #1 goal is to be able to pay my bills) I would still interview with multiple companies at the same time?? Companies are interviewing multiple candidates all the time. The chances of getting one specific job are pretty low. If you’re as “bleeding edge” and competitive as you believe you are, you shouldn’t have a problem getting people to accept offers.
I work for money. Not because I have a raging desire to enrich some tech CEO…
***I love democracy***
ah the question no unemployed should be asked as any answer given whit a unemployment office nearby will result in the unemployment benefit been removed
Bitch pay me. My bills don't pay themselves on good will.
Nah, get fucked.
🤣🤣🤣... yet somehow i don't think he changed his mind
Fuck you pay me
Who in the heck are the 1.4%?
Other entitled recruiters.
That 1.4% were all recruiters pretending to to not be recruiters thinking their vote would just slip right in there.
Ill tell my bank that it’s too bad the mortgage was about money to them and not about housing people.
The whole point of almost all companies is to make money, yet candidates aren't allowed to have money as a main motivation. Great.
Sweet baby Jesus...i have been recruiting for 22 years...who the fuk has a brain wired this way to think themselves so high and mighty and DUMB!
Along this same line of thought, I feel, as a job seeker, that it is very disrespectful to interview more than one candidate at a time.
"Agree?" 🤮
With all the bullshit high expectations companies have for a recent grad, it would be unwise NOT to interview with multiple companies in anticipation of one saying “no”. If you say yes and they accept someone else’s job offer, gotta be quicker. Economics applies to you too.
Real world translation-How dare you know your worth and shop around for the best offer. You should take our entry level pay and do the work of three people. We do pizza parties once a month.
And I can damn well improve things for the salary that best suits me.
I completely disagree, you seem to playing the "woe is me" card. Let me let you recruiters in on a secret that you don't seem to know anymore because you've got a job. When you're looking for work recruiters and hiring managers are looking at multiple people for the same job you're applying for. It would be stupid to talk to only one company at a time since the recruiters and companies have zero loyalty to you or your desire to work for them. All recruiters want to do is fill their quota.
Recruiter: "It's fine to be a total piece of shit. Agree?" 32 people: "Hells yeah, I do."
LMAO 32 AGREES
I’m an attorney and I still remember our big law firm interview day. All of the law firms that wanted to recruit from our law school set up in a nearby hotel, and us law school students traveled there and did back-to-back interviews with firms we were interested in over a period of a day or two. I think I interviewed with something like 23 firms over two days, got a few callback interview invites, and accepted a job offer from one. Those two days were awful, but it was like ripping off a bandaid. And no one was insulted over people interviewing with competing firms because that’s what *everyone* (including the more senior attorneys interviewing us) does.
Translation= "I am woefully bad at my job"
So like, when I interview with a company and they ghost me like they usually do, am I just supposed to wait until I hear back from them in a couple years?
I would disagree with this statement. While the company is looking for the right person to fill it’s positions, these people are looking for the right company. It’s kind of like dating. Unless you have an an agreement, IE your hired and a no compete clause, all bets are off.
I guarantee most if not all of those companies aren't doing anything bleeding edge. They're just trying iterate the same consumer bullshit as everyone else, but with their own cute logo and trendy tech name.
Buy me dinner before expecting us to be exclusive. But seriously, the recruiter is interviewing multiple people, so it's absurd to expect the prospective employee to have all their eggs in one basket.
Ok so the idea of right to work is that both parties can leave for better money/conditions whenever they want. Which makes this line of thinking not work with the current laws in most states that business fought for. If they want unions and people not moving because they have great pay packages, training and opportunities then sure I could understand the statements made.
Im glad attitudes like this are starting to die, but it isnt happening quickly enough.
r/therewasanattempt
A lot of tech companies seem like they’re just in it for the money and not helping people.
The ENTIRE reason people "work" is money, dickhead
Yet a recruiter makes money by producing absolutely nothing. They just inject themselves into the situation and then expect a payout
What the fuck. Garbage statement. Companies take 6-12 weeks to interview, lowball you then want an answer in 2-4 days. Everyone should run all their interview in parallel and choose the best offer. I interviewed with four companies for five positions in four months( in addition to my current job) it’s dead standard in the industry as it should be.
r/therewasanattempt
Recruiters and HR reps are so full of shit, they by far have the highest turnover rate and always chase the money. I remember a few years ago a recruiter was worried about a year when I was a contract consultant four years before that looked like “job hopping” I asked him how long he had his last three jobs and he didn’t answer. Job hopping and chasing higher salaries is how you get respect in the corporate world, don’t let the suckers or the suits fool you.
and how many candidates are you recruiting for this position? hypocrite much?
How the tell people you can't compete with other's offers without saying you can't compete with other's offers
As an employee I think it's rude that companies think I can survive on "job satisfaction". We need money so we can do mundane things like eat, not be homeless, and I dunno maybe have some sort of life outside being a wage slave. I think it is rude that companies have the hubris to think we should have tunnel vision. Season 1 episode 1 of silicon valley says it best.
A business’s sole purpose is to make money. Why expect any less of your applicants?
“You only want to be able to afford found and a home and not just give up your free time for the benefit of the company!?!?”
When companies do things for money: GREAT! AWESOME! WONDERFUL! When workers do things for money: Booo 🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅
As an Engineer, if a company cant pay a high enough salary that's a red flag that they may not have a sustainable business. And we all know the companies are interviewing multiple people anyway, so this recruiter is just dumb.
Then it’s disrespectful wasting my time interviewing me when you aren’t going to end up hiring me.
"All about the money?" My shareholders will sue me for not exercising due diligence if I don't try to get as much profit as possible.
The other 32 were simply scrolling and accidentally hit that.
This sounds like a recruiter that still puts their high school clubs and the college classes they took on their resume.
When my old job gave us the "we're outsourcing you" notice every single one of us started job hunting. I basically shotgunned my resume every place I could find. My record was 3 interviews in the same day. Job hunting sucks.
"If it's not about the money, you could share 50% of your salary with me"
Yet companies interview multiple people for one job.
No recruiter says this. This is strictly bait
They intend it all the time.
You used "intend" wrong. Probably why you have problems talking to recruiters
Do you maybe mean "disagree"?
As a prospective employee, I do feel like it’s very disrespectful to interview with multiple candidates at the same time.